masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Morality info and NPC descriptions
In my opinion, NPC pages should have Morality information included. Please note that this information is already present in some of them. Most importantly, a player needs to be aware, when he pulls up a particular NPC, that there are morality points to be gained/lost. Given that this game can very very unforgiving about lost morality points: that a player may have to COMPLETELY REDO THEIR GAME to unlock some storylies if they miss enough morality point percentages to ... hours and hours of work... it serves the player best to have morality point information in both the full morality guide, and also on a per-npc basis. The "Morality Guide" is horribly long. It's useful to have as an all-in-one reference, but it is also very useful to have per-NPC references as well. It's simpler, when you're having a conversation with "person X", to go pull up that person by name on the wiki, rather than have to search through the very long guide. Some characters' names appear many times in that page, so a simple search for a name, can be painful. Not to mention that editing that page, is extremely painful as well! Preview is virtually useless, since "find in page" goes with regular page, not preview popup. (also, at the user level, I was not even aware that there WAS a full "morality guide", until I had been using this site for a week.) At the bare minimum, I think that NPC characters should have some kind of "go see the morality guide for details" link, if there are points to be gained related to that NPC. Side issue: I see in the instructions for the template, I'm supposed to put "Dec 16, 2011" as a mention for when voting closes, but it is not clear to me exactly where I should put it. Please edit this paragraph as appropriate. Voting Support Neutral Oppose #Completely oppose as the proposal sits currently. See below. Lancer1289 04:56, December 10, 2011 (UTC) #-- Commdor (Talk) 09:40, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Discussion As this proposal stands currently, we will create a massive problem if it is passed. We already do not permit Walkthrough Information in Articles as it stands already, and this would add walkthrough information to those articles. Therefore we create an issue with two different proposals saying two different things. We cannot have two different policies saying two separate things as this creates a loophole, and those do nothing but cause problems. There are plenty of examples of this. This could also throw the use of "you" into articles, and that was already discouraged before the walkthrough addition to the MoS, and even more so now. We write articles to be as in-universe as possible, and while that isn't always the case, we need to work on that while we have the time, that is the goal. So things like "you gain five paragon points" completely breaks the style of it, breaks the feel of the article, and shatters the fourth wall. While we are at it, I think that when, if, this proposal fails, another one should be started to permanently remove all walkthrough information from articles, including morality points, where it isn't appropriate. Had this just been to permit them in walkthrough articles, then I'd support that, as I still have misgivings about that, but this proposal would bring it into conflict with current, accepted standards and policies, and that doesn’t jive with me one bit. Lancer1289 04:56, December 10, 2011 (UTC) ---- The voting period has concluded. The policy proposal has failed 0-0-2. -- Commdor (Talk) 09:40, December 19, 2011 (UTC)